The present invention relates to a non-lethal projectile system and, more particularly to non-lethal projectiles that deliver an inhibiting and/or marking substance to a target, especially a living target. Even more particularly, the present invention relates to non-lethal projectile systems including a capsule, most preferably a generally spherical capsule, containing an inhibiting and/or marking substance, and tactical methods for using the non-lethal projectile systems in combination with a launch device in order to most effectively inhibit, impair, or disable the living target in a less-than-lethal way. The projectile systems of the present invention, upon impact with the living target, provide optimized dispersal of the inhibiting and/or marking substance on and about the target, and in particular, provide an improved mechanism for delivering the inhibiting substance to the target's face, without requiring that the projectile impact the target's face. Further, the projectile system is designed such that deployment facilitates its effectiveness by creating sufficient force, upon impact with the target, to cause the target to move his, her or its face into the dispersing substance, while at the same time experiencing impairment, or temporary disability as a result of the impact. Specifically, the non-lethal projectiles are able to be launched with sufficient non-lethal force to immediately slow and/or stop a moving target, before the inhibiting substance carried thereby affects the target. Additionally, the projectile systems of the present invention are easier and cheaper to manufacture than heretofore known projectiles, are effective at safer, stand-off distances as well as at close range distances, are easily integrated into normal officer training programs, and can be used with conventional, as well as custom, launchers.
Steadily rising crime rates have led to an increased need for technologically enhanced crime devices. There is particularly a need for non-lethal devices that are capable of at least temporarily incapacitating, slowing or inhibiting a suspected criminal and/or marking such individuals for later identification. As populations increase, the risk that a criminal will be surrounded by or in close proximity to innocent persons when officers are trying to subdue him/her also increases. Whereas non-permanently injuring an innocent bystander, while subduing a suspected criminal, is acceptable, killing the bystander is not. Thus, there is great need for non-lethal (or less-than-lethal), highly effective weapons that may be used by officers and others to slow, stop and/or mark criminals. Presently available, non-lethal devices include, for example, stun guns, mace, tear gas, pepper spray devices and similar devices that impair the vision, breathing or other physical or mental capabilities of the target.
One attempt to provide a non-lethal device for delivering an inhibiting substance is shown in U.S. Pat. No. 3,921,614, issued to Fogelgren for a COMPRESSED GAS OPERATED GUN HAVING VARIABLE UPPER AND LOWER PRESSURE LIMITS OF OPERATION, which patent is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Fogelgren describes a gas-operated gun and associated projectiles. In one illustrated embodiment, a projectile consists of a projectile casing that houses a structure in which a firing pin is situated so as to detonate a primary charge upon impact of the projectile with a target. Deterioration of the primary charge causes the expulsion of a load carried in a load chamber. The load chamber may contain various types of load, such as tear gas, dye, flash-powder or wadding.
Another embodiment illustrated in the Fogelgren patent consists of a projectile casing that encloses a body member, which, together with a frontal member, defines a load chamber. The body member and the frontal member are attached so as to be readily separable in flight to enable the load to escape from the load chamber and to proceed to the desired target. In this embodiment, the load is buckshot or plastic pellets.
A further embodiment of the projectile shown by Fogelgren stores a portion of a compressed gas, utilized to expel the projectile, to be used to expel a load upon striking a target. Upon firing, an outer body member separates from an inner body member thereby exposing and releasing a holding pin, which holding pin prevents premature release of the projectile's load. Apertures, from which the load is expelled upon impact, are sealed with wax to prevent expulsion of the load before the projectile impacts the target. The portion of the compressed gas used to expel the load is stored in a rear chamber of the projectile during flight, while the load is stored in a forward chamber. When the projectile strikes the target, the compressed gas is released, forcing the load through the apertures and out of the projectile.
An additional embodiment of the projectile shown by Fogelgren consists of outer members that form a container into which is fitted a breakable glass vile. Rearward of the breakable vile, padding is provided to prevent breakage of the vile upon firing of the projectile. Forward of the vile is a firing pin assembly against which the breakable vile impacts, as it shifts forward within the members forming the container, upon impact. As with the above embodiment, a holding pin, which normally prevents the breakable vial from shifting forward in the container, is expelled as an outer body member separates from an inner body member. This allows the breakable vial to shift forward upon impact, shattering the breakable glass vial against the firing pin. The breakable vile contains a load to be delivered to the target, which is delivered through apertures near the front of the projectile upon the shattering of the breakable glass vial. The vile may be charged with a compressed gas so as to provide a charged load.
Disadvantageously, the projectiles described by Fogelgren, particularly those projectiles described that would be suitable for delivering loads such as tear gas or dye, are complicated and expensive to manufacture. The embodiment employing pressurized gas to both expel the projectile and to expel the load upon impact with the target requires a great amount of pressurized gas, that is, a sufficient quantity to both fire the projectile and to provide the portion of pressurized gas necessary to ensure expulsion of the load. In addition, such embodiment requires complicated and tedious methods to manufacture components such as a microminiature ball valve (through which the portion of the pressurized gas enters the rear chamber upon firing), wax sealer within each of the plurality of apertures and a holding pin that must fall away from the projectile in flight.
The embodiment employing the breakable glass vial is also complicated to manufacture, because it also employs a holding pin that must fall away during the flight of the projectile and employs numerous structures that must be precisely fitted together to allow them to separate during firing and in flight. This embodiment also must be carefully handled so that the breakable glass vial does not shatter while being handled by the user. This can be particularly problematic, for example, when the Fogelgren device is being used by a police officer in pursuit of a fleeing criminal (or when used by a police officer threatened by a suspected criminal). Thus, significant room for improvement still exists in the development of non-lethal projectiles.
Another approach to providing non-lethal projectiles for delivering an inhibiting substance to a living target is suggested in U.S. Pat. No. 5,254,379, issued to Kotsiopoulos, et al., for a PAINT BALL, which patent is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. The Kotsiopoulos, et al., device is directed primarily to a paint ball projectile for delivering a load (or blob) of paint to a target, and for expelling the blob of paint onto the target upon impact. The paint ball shown by Kotsiopoulos, et al. consists of a shell that fractures in a predetermined pattern upon impact with a target. The Kotsiopoulos, et al. disclosure includes a passing reference to the use of such a paint ball for delivering dyes, smoke or tear gas to a target, however, provides no mechanism for dispersing an inhibiting load upon explosion of the projectile, which is important for a non-lethal inhibiting projectile to be effective. Specifically, when the Kotsiopoulos, et al. projectile impacts the target, by-design, the load is dispersed rather locally. Thus, even if one skilled in the art were to act upon the passing reference to using tear gas in the Kotsiopoulos, et al. patent, to using tear gas, the present inventors believe that such a device would be generally ineffective because the tear gas would not be dispersed to the target's face, where it needs to be to be effective. Furthermore, as Kotsiopoulos, et al. is an unpressurized projectile, the amount of tear gas delivered would necessarily be limited to an unpressurized volume having dimensions of a paint ball. Even if this amount of tear gas were delivered to a target's face, it is unlikely that this amount of tear gas would be sufficiently effective to impair the target in a useful way.
To elaborate on the importance of localized dispersion of loads carried by the Kotsiopoulos et al. projectile, Kotsiopoulos, et al. describe a device for delivering a blob of paint to a target dictating a relatively confined dispersion, i.e., a blob of about 3 to 6 or 8 inches in diameter on the target. It would, in fact, be undesirable to widely disperse paint in the context in which the Kotsiopoulos, et al., device is used as such could be quite dangerous to the target. In contrast, for applications where an inhibiting substance is to be delivered, wide dispersion is not only desired but extremely important, particularly when the projectile impacts the target with force, and the inhibiting substance must be taken in through facial openings in order to be effective. Because firing even a non-lethal or less-than-lethal projectile at or within a few inches of a target's face is extremely dangerous, potentially causing permanent injury or death, which is, of course, contrary to the objective of non-lethal projectiles, devices such as those suggested by the teachings of Kotsiopoulos, et al., would be considered undesirable by those of skill in the art to achieve a non-lethal inhibition of a target.
Still other non-lethal projectiles are described, for example, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,009,164, issued to Grinberg (Apr. 23, 1991), U.S. Pat. No. 5,221,809 issued to Cuadros (Jun. 22, 1993) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,565,649, issued to Tougeron, et al. (Oct. 15, 1996), each of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Grinberg describes a projectile that changes its shape upon impact with a target, thereby reducing the danger of penetration into a live target. For example, Grinberg uses a double leaf construction to facilitate rupture of the projectile upon impact. Cuadros describes a projectile that increases in size either during flight or upon impact to spread its force over a large area to provide a knock-down effect without body penetration, and Tougeron, et al., describe a self-propelled projectile intended to deliver an active substance to a living target. While each of the devices described by these patents attempts to provide a projectile that may be used to stop or slow a living target without causing lethal injury, all of the devices have proven to be less than ideal. They are complicated and expensive to manufacture, and they are variously difficult to use and unreliably effective. As a result of these problems and others, there is no widely commercially accepted non-lethal projectile in use by law enforcement or military personnel today that delivers an inhibiting substance to a target.
A significant disadvantage to the prior art devices is that none takes into consideration the need to deliver an inhibiting (or active) substance under fairly precise dispersal conditions to insure effectiveness thereof. When a target is impacted with a projectile delivering a substance thereto, to be maximally effective, the substance should disperse in a generally radial manner (or transverse to the motion of the projectile) such that the target's face is quickly and fully contacted thereby. At the same time, the projectile should, most desirably, be able to be aimed with a degree of precision so as to be able to avoid hitting the target in, for example, the face. At the same time, the dispersion of the inhibiting substance must be sufficient that, for example, a projectile impacting on a target's chest delivers inhibiting substance to the target's face where it can be effective. Unfortunately, prior art projectiles, not only rarely contemplate these problems, but also frequently fail to provide for dispersal of the inhibiting substance to a target's face after impacting the target at a remote area. Specifically, for example, while powdered inhibiting substances, in the view of the inventors, offer distinct advantages over the vast majority of prior art devices that deliver inhibiting substances to a target, no commercially viable device known to the inventors has ever been produced that addresses the problem of both accurately delivering the projectile to the target at a location remote from the target's face, and dispersing a powered inhibiting substance in a cloud-like, radial manner so as to assure that the powdered inhibiting substance reaches the target's face. Yet, there remains a significant commercial market and tactical advantage to a non-lethal or less-than-lethal projectile that can be accurately delivered to a target, impacting the target in an area other than the target's face, while at the same time providing dispersal of a powdered inhibiting substance to the target's face, where it is effective. Unfortunately, using devices heretofore known to the inventors, targets are often able to escape and/or minimize their exposure to the delivered substance.
A further disadvantage to most non-lethal weapons heretofore known is that they either operate at close ranges, for example, pepper spray canisters, or operate at long ranges, for example, rubber bullet devices, but do not operate at both close and long ranges. The inventors are not aware of any prior devices that are both sufficiently safe to be used at close range and, at the same time, effective at longer ranges, such as 10 feet or more, e.g., 20 or 30 feet or more. In particular, the close range weapons are generally not deployed with sufficient force to travel further than a few meters, and the longer range weapons generally are not “muzzle safe” in that they cannot be safely deployed at very short distances because of the chemical/explosive nature of the launching mechanism. Thus, presently, law enforcement and military personnel are required to employ two different technologies, one for close range applications, and another for long range applications. At the same time, the advantages of using a single device for both applications are numerous, and readily apparent. For example, cost is a significant factor recognized universally by governmental agencies, but perhaps even more importantly is a tactical disadvantage imposed by the use of both short range and long range non-lethal or less-than-lethal technologies. Specifically, all technologies known to the present inventors require that a user make a decision as to whether a particular situation calls for a short range non-lethal technology or a long range non-lethal technology. This requires not only spending time to assess a situation in order to determine whether non-lethal or lethal technology should be employed, but also requires expenditure of more time determining which non-lethal technology is appropriate, that is whether the situation calls for short-range technology or long-range technology. As a result, non-lethal and less-than-lethal projectiles are rarely used by law enforcement and military personnel, and, when used, are generally used only in situations where sufficient time exists for the user to make the chain of decisions necessary to first select non-lethal technology and second, to select what range of non-lethal technology is appropriate.
Cost becomes an important consideration in these tactical issues as well. Because two types of non-lethal technology must, using heretofore known technology, be available, many, if not most, law enforcement and military agencies cannot afford to fully equip their personnel. This cost constraint is further exacerbated because heretofore available non-lethal technologies, at least the ones that are effective, and thus actually useable, are complicated and highly specialized and most non-lethal devices do not offer a low-cost inert training version. Thus, training is costly and therefore, use is infrequent. As a result, even if currently available technologies could be used at both short and long ranges (thus presumably providing tactical and cost advantages), the actual costs of currently available devices is still prohibitive and therefore dictates only limited deployment.
Finally, there are currently, no projectile systems available on the market for delivering powdered substances to a living target. One reason for this unavailability is that such heretofore contemplated projectile systems are difficult to manufacture or are ineffective. While dispensing a powdered substance into a cup is straightforward, dispensing the substance into two parts of an apparatus that must subsequently be sealingly joined together, without loss of any of the powdered substance, is not so straightforward. Kotsiopoulos, et al., for example, show completely filling their paint ball through a small hole using a capillary. Such an approach, however, cannot be used to fill the Kotsiopoulos, et al. device with a powder, as it is known that powder generally cannot be conducted through a capillary as can a liquid or gas. This manufacturing difficulty combined with the aforementioned difficulties in insuring adequate dispersal of the substance, especially powdered substances, has prevented manufacturers of non-lethal projectile systems from entering the market with powder-filled devices. Today, to the knowledge of the present inventors, there is no heretofore commercially viable, non-lethal or less-than-lethal projectile for delivering a powdered inhibiting substance to a target. While powdered inhibiting substances are known, there is presently no delivery mechanism available for accurately delivering and dispersing such an inhibiting substance in a non-lethal, short or long range manner.
Thus, as will be appreciated by those of skill in the art, significant improvements are needed in non-lethal projectiles for delivering inhibiting and/or marking substances to targets, especially to living targets. For example, muzzle safe projectile systems that provide optimum dispersal of the substances contained therein are desirable. Further, projectile systems that may be readily incorporated into existing officer training programs would be advantageous, as such systems would insure that officers could be quickly, cost effectively, and easily trained in the use of the system, which, in turn would be of particular advantage to the officer when attempting to use the system under stressful situations, as would normally be the case. Additionally, non-lethal projectile systems designed to impact a living target in such a way as to actually facilitate the effectiveness of the system are desirable, as are methods of employing such projectile systems to maximize effectiveness thereof.